I had jury duty today and served on a jury box and was later dismissed. I have a question regarding the admission of crimes. For example the judge asked if anyone felt they could not serve being on the panel. I raised my hand and stated I have seen a close friends life ruined because of her dads alcoholism and would be biased. I was dismissed.
Now here is the question. What if the case was say a drug related case. The judge asked the jury if they would have any biases. I raise my hand and say I do. The judge asked what it is and I state that I smoke pot several times daily.
What would happen? Could I get in trouble confessing to something like this? What if the judged asked me when was the last time and i said on the way here? They would imply driving while high. Could I/Would I get in trouble? Are jurors immune to things like this? Otherwise people would just lie and be biased
At least one judge I know would probably cite you for contempt for being a smartass. Or for showing up in his courtroom under the influence. Or for otherwise pissing him off. He’s a notorious curmudgeon. Makes me look like a teddy bear.
There are plenty of ways to answer that question without confessing to a crime. For example, “Your honor, I think drug laws are immoral, and shouldn’t be enforced” would probably get you dismissed, without you confessing to anything.
With the OP answered (quick on the draw, Oakminster!), I’d like to ask a related question if I may: suppose our hypothetical conscientious drug-law objector keeps his mouth shut during voir dire, makes it onto the jury of a man being tried for possession with intent, and then refuses to convict based on his beliefs despite mounds of nigh-incontrovertible evidence?
I understand that jury deliberations are supposedly private – what happens in chambers stays in chambers, as it were – but I’ve spent enough time around lawyers to know that such “confidential” information makes its way around, especially in smaller jurisdictions. Could this ever be grounds for a charge of contempt or perjury, or is there a confidentiality rule somewhere that protects the juror? Would it make any difference if the juror had been asked directly about his beliefs during voir dire (“Mr. Johnson, do you hold any views that might prevent you from making a decision based solely upon the evidence of this case?”)
The American rule is that the confidentiality of deliberations is sacrosanct while the trial in ongoing, but once the jury is dismissed the jurors can talk to anyone they like about any aspect of what went on. To do otherwise would impinge greatly on the freedom of speech of jurors in what might be matters of great public interest.
On the extreme of this I remember seeing live, what was it, Michel Jackson? One of the major news zoo events, right after the trial. A juror being interviewed right off picked up a book he had written while the trial was going on and had an advance copy printed. He held it up at the end of the short interview and promo’ed his book, on sale soon!
The other newscasters were shocked. I think one of them was like, “Did I just hear that, did that guy just do what I thought he did?” They were speechless.
Possibly that guy made some dramatic move in the jury room that he wouldn’t have done otherwise to place himself as a center piece in his own book. Rather than listening to the debate and contributing as one in twelve he became the star of, what is in effect, his own reality TV show… A part of the zoo of media outside on the steps of the courthouse rather than a rational piece of the justice system.
Imagine if the next giant uber media trial gets all its people acting for the part. Book publishers could contact family members to convince their relative on the jury to sign a contract to write (or have ghost written) a book based on their experience. We could have dressing rooms, agents, limos… Imagine a Real World cast of twelve around one table.
Can anyone find this? I can’t seem to find what major trial it was, though it was within the last few years.
And I’m NOT imagining any part of it. While I don’t remember the trial (I find the zoo media kinda creepy and stay away from all the “Cute Blond 20 Something Missing” stories that go on for months while people go missing everyday) I’m 100% sure I saw this and recalled it accurately. It was only about 30 seconds of airtime.
Right, I understand jury nullification. Perhaps I should have picked a different example, but I’m basically asking if there are any circumstances under which a juror might be held accountable for perjury or contempt for lying (or lying by omission) during voir dire questioning.